Graham Stringer: I welcome the Government's White Paper, "Putting Passengers First". Thinking about that title, one wonders where they have been for the last 20 years. But it is a good title and I trust that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will put into practice some of the ideas and proposals in the document. I am not going to use the time available to me to go into why I think that the hurdles in the White Paper are too high to replace the only available alternative test, because the Minister has made it clear that he is open to detailed suggestions. I guess that other hon. Members will make those suggestions during the debate. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that the concessionary fare scheme looks as though, financially, it could run out of control. That is a great worry to all the passenger transport authorities in England. Again, the Minister has said that he will look at that and I am content that he will do so.
	Before I get on to the meat of what I want to say, I want to make one or two statistical points in relation to some of the comments that have been made. We are all proud that passenger numbers are going up for the first time for some years, but, in looking at those statistics, we need to be careful that we are comparing like with like. The new concessionary fare scheme came into force from last year and obviously the comparison no longer involves the same scheme as before. People who need to get to a hospital or to work may well still not be getting buses, although the overall headline figures are improving considerably. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will look at some way of taking the statistics apart so that we can make a real comparison between what happened before the start of concessionary scheme in 1986 and what is happening now.
	I would also like to look at the comparisons that have been made by Members on both Front Benches in relation to areas where quality partnerships or the current deregulation system are said to work. I just want to point out two or three facts.
	Although passenger numbers have increased, the route network has declined in almost all small towns. Some people do not have access to services, even though more people are using them. That statistical point is similar to the one that I made previously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, those towns and small areas are often served by what are essentially monopoly providers, or municipal bus companies. It is difficult to understand how one can compare such areas with the great cities of Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and Liverpool. However, those are not my main points.
	I have great respect for the Minister and the Under-Secretary, who are tough debaters. By the end of the consultation process, I want to feel that they are up to the fight with the bus companies. Some of the debate over the past 10 to 20 years has lacked reality. We hear talk of a Panglossian world—a Jack and Jill world—in which if only the naughty children in the passenger transport authorities and the bus companies would get on a bit better, shake hands and make friends, everything would be nice. We hear phrases such as, "We want constructive partnerships; they are the key to delivery", but if we look at what is happening we see that we are dealing, in the case of the five biggest bus companies, with avaricious, multinational companies that are public subsidy junkets. A terrific amount of public money goes into those companies and they are aggressively anti-PTAs and anti-county councils because they think that they are fighting for their lives—fighting to continue their main lining of public subsidy. They operate not competitively, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) seems to hope is the case, but, essentially, in monopoly or near-monopoly situations. I thus want to test whether Ministers are up to the fight with those groups.
	We have heard about, or read Committee reports outlining, the thinking in the Department for Transport. Although this might be unfair because the civil servant in question has retired, the former permanent secretary in the Department has said some extraordinary things. He was completely wrong when he appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on 23 January 2006 and said that the real difference between the system of public transport in London, which works, and that in the rest of the country arose due to the fact that London had made different choices. That statement demonstrated his inadequate knowledge of the situation. While London uses the stream of money that it receives for its bus system well, authorities in metropolitan areas face all sorts of different issues, not least of which is the threat of council tax capping if their priorities are changed. It was worrying that the permanent secretary did not seem to understand the system. I will not bore the House by going into further detail, but if people want to read further analysis of the situation, it is in the excellent report by the Transport Committee, "Bus services across the UK".
	Even more worryingly, trade weeklies, such as  Bus & Coach Buyer, contain boasts from ex-civil servants that they have more influence, by going to the Department for Transport and talking to their old pals about what they would like for the major companies, than us mere Back Benchers, by tabling early-day motions. I could supply the Ministers with quotes about that. When the Transport Committee quizzed the permanent secretary about that situation, he was complacent—that is the fairest comment that I can make. I hope that Ministers will examine the regular visits made to old chums in the Department by consultants who are paid large amounts by the bus companies. We need a greater understanding of why, over the past 20 years—certainly over the past 10 years of a Labour Government—there has been a steady stream of advice to Ministers that bringing some form of regulation back to the metropolitan areas would be a bad thing, despite the fact that that goes against most of the available evidence.
	The hon. Member for North Shropshire said—this is always in the briefing notes that my hon. Friends and I receive—that we should not go back to the 1985 system. There might be a Labour Member who wants to go back to the situation in 1985, but I cannot honestly name him or her, or point to a relevant reference. I am fairly familiar with the views of the Labour Members in the Chamber. None of them wants that to happen, so the point is irrelevant. We want better services and better use of the public money that goes into public transport.
	Let me say a few words about the financial structure of the industry itself. I was disappointed by the Government's response to the Transport Committee's report on buses. We asked a simple question, although we could perhaps have made its wording more elegant or comprehensive. We wanted the Government to tell us the level of profit at which buses become viable, or, to put it another way, the point at which bus companies start ripping off and exploiting the public sector. We received the response that that question was too difficult to answer—I am paraphrasing because I have not written it down—but that worries me a great deal. We are considering the viability of these companies. They know where the subsidy is going and understand completely how to manipulate the system, whether that is achieved through concessionary fares or by withdrawing from subsidised routes.
	I will try to illustrate what is happening by citing some figures from Manchester. The national figures are very simple and round: the big five companies make about £400 million profit each year, while £2.5 billion of public subsidy goes into them. However, the local situation in Manchester shows significant evidence of monopoly behaviour. The number of supported services has increased by 25 per cent. for no obvious reason. When those services are put out to tender, only one bus company applies, which means that the cost for each mile travelled goes up by more than 30 per cent. above inflation.
	A subsidy of about £100 million goes into the bus system in Greater Manchester, but that gives no control over what happens, except on subsidised routes. What percentage of the bus operators' costs do Ministers think that that represents? I have done some calculations to demonstrate what is happening and to explain why there will be a very tough fight—we are not dealing with nice, chummy bus companies that have the public interest at heart. First Group runs a near-monopoly in my north Manchester constituency. I estimate—I can show the working figures to anyone who is interested—that 47 per cent. of its operating costs are paid for by the taxpayer. The taxpayer has thus paid about 50 per cent. of all costs before a bus gets out of the depot. As soon as First saw that it could get extra subsidy out of the concessionary fare system, it put up its fares by 10 per cent.—it would like a little more public subsidy, thanks very much.
	I suspect that the hon. Member for North Shropshire has more faith in quality partnerships than I have. The prospect of the White Paper, which I welcome, led these rather unpleasant companies to threaten to withdraw their services and leave passengers high and dry if PTAs and councils did not get into partnerships with them at that time. Effectively, they are saying that they will leave the people we care about—who they do not care about—high and dry. That is the real fight that is going on. These people are fighting for their lives, as they are totally dependent on public subsidy.
	Brian Souter, who runs Stagecoach, recently took out adverts in the  Manchester Evening News attacking the passenger transport authority for not providing park-and-drive facilities. If he is such a great entrepreneur, why does he not do it himself? Why does he not buy the land to do it? He has huge profits in Stagecoach, as he is running more or less a monopoly in south Manchester, but that is not his attitude. He has the attitude of a 19th century mill owner, but one who wants some public subsidy as well. There were some pretty unpleasant cotton barons in 19th century Lancashire, but at least they did not ask the local authorities or the Government for money while they were grinding the faces of the workers into the ground. They did so without public subsidy, but not so in Souter's case. He wants to be feather-bedded by public subsidy against real competition.
	At the same time, Souter, along with UK North and GM Buses, which have now gone bankrupt, was prepared to destroy the economy of Manchester's city centre by blocking it up unnecessarily. They knew exactly what they were doing. They were putting pressure on Manchester city council and the passenger transport authority to co-operate with them and give them more cash. In effect, they were saying that they could wreck the city centre by stopping people coming into hospitals or offices. That is their attitude.
	To take a slight international diversion, I would like to provide a glimpse of the future. I am aware of the provenance of that phrase and that it is not usually a happy provenance when people say that they have seen the future. At the expense of the Service Employees International Union, the largest in the US, I went to look at the operations of First Group in America. I went to Jacksonville and Minneapolis-St. Paul and I also talked to drivers in Cincinnati. Together with the Transport and General Workers Union, we were extremely concerned that the practices that First Group was following in the US would soon be seen in this country.
	What I saw was horrifying, although I do not have enough time to provide all the details. First Group, operating as First Student in the US, one of the three biggest bus companies, made me feel ashamed. People who were trying to organise and form trade unions were having the wheels changed on their buses so that they were unsafe in the deepest mid-winter around Minneapolis-St. Paul, where it is often minus 20° or minus 30°, making the roads dangerous. I spoke to many drivers and many people who were trying to organise unions and the response was always the same. First was anti-trade union activity; it acted aggressively and with hostility, showing itself willing to put children's lives at risk. I spoke to the managing director over there and to the people back here. What was happening was completely unacceptable and I was ashamed that a British company was acting like that. I use that example to illustrate the fact that we are not dealing with people who have the public interest at heart.
	I have two further points before finishing. The White Paper is part of a welcome general change in attitude to public transport. The Government are saying that the deregulated system has not worked in part, which I suppose is progress. They say that it has worked in other parts, but I disagree. The Government are going to look further into having quality contracts and a change of governance. They are saying that if people want the cash to improve public transport, they will in some cases have to have road pricing and congestion charging.
	I can tell Ministers that I am not against road pricing in principle. I believe that a thoroughly sound intellectual case can be made for it at the right time, but forcing it into urban areas where it may not be appropriate—it could be a hindrance, barrier and hurdle even though it may be a good thing in its own terms—is quite wrong. I have looked into some of the details of schemes proposed for Greater Manchester—there remains more to be seen—and I do not understand why people in Manchester should pay a higher tax for using the roads there in order to get a bus, tram and possibly a rail system that should be available to them in any case. There may be a case for it, but if we ever get road pricing, I would expect either fuel duty or road tax to be decreased, which cannot happen if an experiment goes on only in one place. I therefore hope that Ministers will look further into that.